Did Konica ever made a SLR in the same class as Pentax ME Super/Olympus OM2/Nikon FE/Minolta XD?

So my Autoreflex T3 just jammed and my backup Autoreflex TC's prism is failing to the point of unusable.
Personally I hated the TC for being flimsy and the T3 is nice but heavy and temperamental; I'm hoping to replace them with a small, light aperture priority camera with handling similar to Pentax ME Super/Olympus OM2/Nikon FE/Minolta XD class of camera, something small, quick in handling with refinement.
The only reason I'm still looking to find a Konica SLR body is because I have a good set of AR Hexanon lens and in particular the 21mm/2.8, it's a good lens and I cannot justify the cost of purchasing a 21mm from any of the other systems.

All the Konicas are pretty old now, but personally I would look for a couple of working TC bodies on ebay and go with that. The TCs are not flimsy, they are just a little more plasticky than the older T bodies. I've been using my TCs for going on 40 years now, no regrets. Three months ago, I found another TC body on ebay for $60 that had never been used, absolutely smooth as silk. There are always a selection of TCs on ebay in various conditions, as far as Konica goes, it's really your best bet.

There is no Konica camera body that fits your requirements. There is no aperture priority. And there is no body that is both light weight and fully features.

I still use my T3n and TC, because I love the Hexanon AR lenses. The T3n I have to do a bit of maintenance myself. The TC is plastic, but seems to work fine within its specs.

While none of the Konica SLR cameras offered aperture priority exposure, there were seven models that were lightweight. Here's a table that compares their features:

http://www.konicafiles.com/slr-bodies/-comparative-table/

The T4 is a bit lighter, has an optional winder, all mechanical but only shutter speed preferred and manual exposure, and loses the aperture read out of the T3. The later models FS and Ft had electronic shutters, integrated winder, still only shutter speed preferred and manual exposure. Looking at Ebay there are a large number for sale that are no longer working. I have a working A, T, T3, and T4, the FT I had stopped working I have not bothered to replace it. Another option is the A3, a stripped T3, unlike the A, top shutter speed of 1/1000 of second. No on and off switch or self timer. There were also manual versions of the FS and FT with a optional motor winder. If you spend time looking on Ebay, Shopgoodwill.com KEH and the like you might a Ft in working order, it will the closest to what you want.

The FT-1 was their top model. It was compact, and had powered film advance and rewind. I have a few of these, as well as the earlier FS-1. I think only one of the FT-1's still works, but all the others have failed. The mechanical and electrical systems are essentially biodegradable. The battery compartments are very fragile. I wouldn't bother with them. If you can find one working now, it probably won't for long. If the electronics don't work, the camera is a brick, since it can't work without it.

I use an old T3. The meter doesn't work, but I can still use the lenses in manual mode. Just look for another cheap T3,. You'll be better off in the long run.

I wish.

I have used several Pentax models, including multiple Spotmatics, ME Super, MX, and KX. For me, Pentax bodies feel good and work good, and the lenses seem to be very good too.

But Konica lenses might be even better than Pentax, especially for color film. So far, I've used a Konica Autoreflex T4 and a T3n, which I had to return because the seller never could get it to work as promised. I love my Konica lenses, but I don't believe the Konica bodies are in the same class as what I've seen from Pentax. The T3n seems to be well made, but I never did bond with it due to the substantial weight and -- compared to my Pentax MX -- the darker viewfinder.

I prefer smaller lighter cameras, so the Konica T4 appeals to me. The T4 viewfinder is not as bright as my MX, but it is acceptable. My Konica T4 has been CLA'd by Greg Weber, but it still has a minor light leak which nobody can find. For me, the T4 is probably the best compromise between useability, weight, and expected reliability. I've been searching for a second T4, but I just ordered a TC instead, which is kind of an economy version of the T4. The one on order has a recent CLA and meter adjustments for modern batteries, plus it comes with several lenses at good price. Hope I don't regret it.

I have done a LOT of reading about the Konica brand bodies, and the only ones I would feel comfortable buying are the Autoreflex T3/T3n, the T4, and (hopefully) the TC. Several of the later models that start with F have known reliability issues. The Konica bodies that use AA or AAA batteries in the hand-grip battery holder often have corroded or damaged battery holders, which seem to be a real weak link in design / manufacture.

Personally I don't like Konica's later motorized bodies such as FS-1 and FT-1.

But and this is a big but. If you are handy and if you get a free or dirt cheap FT-1 whose electronics are not working but in excellent condition otherwise (incuding battery holder), you might be able to revive it by doing some basic service yourself. Open up the top cover, remove the goo (used to be insulation) underneath two ribbon flex cables, add new insulation, and put everything back. I have done it once, and it is doable. But in the end, I still sold the FT-1 because it just does not gel with me.

But Konica lenses might be even better than Pentax, especially for color film

The Konica 50mm 1.7 was used by the Japaneses Government as the bench mark for testing lens. Maybe 20 years ago I tested my 50mm lens, at the time Konica, Miranda, Minolta MD, Pentax M42 and K, Topcon UV, Yaschica and Mamiya M42, used the last of my Microfiche film, AF test chart and my sons old high school microscope. At the time I did not own either Nikon or Canon. The Konica 50 1.7 came in at over 300 LPM, might have been better but the microscope was not the best. Both Pop Photo and Modern Photo tested the 38mm on the Konica S3 and found to be as sharp as any Leica. Although Konica did not make as many differnt lens as the the big Japaness makes, Nikon, Canon, Minolta and Pentax, what lens they did make were some of the best glass on the market. Today the Konica M mount rangfinder lens bring a primium.

It's all the more frustrating that Konica lenses are so good, but their SLR bodies are not in the same class.

It is probably also worth mentioning that some of the legendary Konica lenses were not made by Konica, but were Konica designs manufactured under contract by Tokina.

I had a T, bought in 1970, traded it along with my 57mm 1.2 and 3 lens for a Nikon F with motor drive. Before I traded in the Konica I asked the Konica rep who was making a sales call a Camera Shop I happened by for film. why Konica did not make a motor drive. He said that the CdS were to slow in terms of responsiveness to keep with up a motor drive when coupled with the Speed Preferred Auto Exposure system. He also said it was the reason Minolta did not include a meter in it's version of a motor drive camera.

Konica SLR bodies are inexpensive enough that you can keep some around, but the A / T / TC seem reasonably reliable to me. I have not used them heavily though.

It's fairly common for AA or AAA-powered cameras such as the FS / FT to have corroded battery holders now. But one can't call that a weak link in design - it's not Konica's fault that somebody left AA batteries in an unused camera for 20 years. I have seen quite a few Nikon N-series cameras with badly corroded battery holders also.

The cool thing about the Konica shutter-priority auto was/is that cameras such as the Autoreflex T and A series could have both autoexposure and full no-battery mechanical shutter operation. It is similar to the way that compact rangefinders (Konica S2, Canonet, etc) had both shutter-priority auto and no-battery operation. Typically, aperture-priority auto cameras have an electronically controlled shutter, and if the batteries go or the electronics die, you have no shutter speeds or at best an M90 + B.

reddesert said:

It's fairly common for AA or AAA-powered cameras such as the FS / FT to have corroded battery holders now. But one can't call that a weak link in design - it's not Konica's fault that somebody left AA batteries in an unused camera for 20 years.

Click to expand...

I agree, corrosion from leaky alkaline batteries is not Konica's fault. But corrosion is not the only problem. The electrical contacts within the battery compartment are delicate, and easily damaged. Here is a closeup of the battery compartment from a FT-1 I bought on eBay. I shopped for a Konica FT-1 camera for quite a while, and I noticed more than a few of them do not have a functional battery compartment.

Could anyone tell me whether the models (up to the T4) that use button batteries (625/675) are dependent on the exact 1.35V of mercury versus ~1.5V of alkaline or silver-oxide?

bernard_L said:

Could anyone tell me whether the models (up to the T4) that use button batteries (625/675) are dependent on the exact 1.35V of mercury versus ~1.5V of alkaline or silver-oxide?

Click to expand...

I believe those meters are dependent on 1.35V batteries for accuracy. Some people report you can compensate for the inaccurate reading you will get from an alkaline or silver-oxide battery with an adjustment of the ASA dial, but possibly (likely?) with non-linear results.

The meter circuit in my Konica AR T4 was adjusted by Greg Weber to be accurate with ~1.5V batteries. And I am told the Konica TC that I just bought on eBay was adjusted to use modern batteries by "Adrian at Windsor Photo Outfitters."

I do not know if these technicians are able to make adjustments using only what methods that are built into the cameras, of if they add a Schottky diode or some other kind of voltage regulator? Of course, there are several other well-known solutions for getting these meters to work accurately with modern batteries that do not require a skilled camera technician.

Thank you. I've been thinking on and off about acquiring a TC, with the 40/1.8 complemented by the 28/3.5. But otoh I already have too many cameras.

bernard_L said:

Could anyone tell me whether the models (up to the T4) that use button batteries (625/675) are dependent on the exact 1.35V of mercury versus ~1.5V of alkaline or silver-oxide?

Click to expand...

I use hearing aid batteries, not 1.35 but close enough that the meter on my T to T4 reads within a 1/2 stop of my hand held meters.

Paul Howell said:

I use hearing aid batteries, not 1.35 but close enough that the meter on my T to T4 reads within a 1/2 stop of my hand held meters.

Click to expand...

Same here: hearing aid battery (1.4v) with dumb adapter seems to work well enough for my T3n and TC.